Went 4/5 in College Hoops because when they mentioned famous Tar Heels of the early 80s known for being clutch and awesome during March Madness I went with "Big Game James" James Worthy over Michael Jordan. Worthy was also higher-rated coming out of North Carolina, as he was the #1 overall pick in 1982 while Jordan was the #3 overall pick in 1984.

In fact, mentioning a 2013 poll was misleading non-information in that sense, as I would expect those who actually follow college hoops to rate Worthy as the more legendary March Madness player.

Not a great clue, especially for $400.

The game was underwhelming. I'm used to an entire trio not knowing books (resulting in LT here of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, soma, The Turn of the Screw, and Camus) but not knowing books OR movies (FJ, or the same Sleepy Hollow) is a bad combo.

Wow, Gilbert - very solid play. You won all four quarters but may have gone into CLAM mode one clue too early to get a runaway.

Rebecca has caught a huge break IMHO. But she made her luck with a great finish and a $1200 last pick answer that broke the runaway game and now she gets a mulligan. Here in Chiefs country, we call that a "forward progress" ruling

Since I've been watching regularly the last couple of years I haven't seen a broadcast "mea culpa" like this. When has it happened previously? Or do they sneak them back without fanfare?

I love the stand and stares at clues like yesterday's movie actor and today's "stereo". The Baby Boomers are old, baby, and our culture and customs are not the cat's pajamas, boss, hep, swinging, groovy, cool, tubular, fly, or dope. Stop being surprised, Alex! (YOU ARE OLD!!!). We loved his senior citizen remark about the Peace Corps, very witty

No get on FJ for me and I don't want a mulligan. Anybody who gets that one deserves the solo get. We only watch popcorn movies - no interest in being moved, inspired, saddened, or escaping. Just shiny objects and witty dialog.

Either way Rebecca gets to play again even if she had no idea on the FJ! clue and was in no way thrown by the wording.

Yeah, no kidding. Considering she didn't write anything down, I doubt she thought "Manchester by the Sea? No, it was merely DISTRIBUTED by Amazon, not PRODUCED!"

I don't mind Rebecca getting a second chance on the show (which means someone in the pool won't make it on) although there is a less than 1% chance the FJ clue writing changed anything, but rather the lack of consistency.

I recall an instance where a correct response by player A was initially negged, and later corrected. All good, right? No, because not only did player B get money for it too, but hit a DD that would have otherwise been player A's. And, thanks to that extra money and the DD, player B was within range of player A and got him on the sole solve in FJ.

That is a situation where the game result was 100% changed by the show's mistakes, but player A never got a second chance.

1984 was a historically strong draft class. NBA Hall of Famers include Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockton, and Charles Barkley. Jordan was very highly rated coming out of UNC, though obviously nobody knew just how good he would end up being.

And as a Trail Blazers fan, I can now go cry in a corner.

Never been on J!, but once won a knockoff version that aired on local access TV.

I recall an instance where a correct response by player A was initially negged, and later corrected. All good, right? No, because not only did player B get money for it too, but hit a DD that would have otherwise been player A's. And, thanks to that extra money and the DD, player B was within range of player A and got him on the sole solve in FJ.

That is a situation where the game result was 100% changed by the show's mistakes, but player A never got a second chance.

There is a little bit of the gambler's fallacy in this supposition. It reminds me of the hokum at the blackjack table when players complain that a bad player is messing up their hands by hitting/staying at the wrong time.

The idea that 1) the DD would have been player A's, and 2) that player B was therefore bequeathed extra money are both leaps of faith. Small leaps, I grant you, especially if the DD was indeed the next in order and the players were calling clues in the conventional vertical order. It's another small leap to grant the money as a given - lots of DD's are lost as well - indeed player A might have missed it and been spared a loss.

It certainly is possible that a sure victory was turned into a pathway for defeat, but player B has earned it by giving the judge's answer in the first place and getting the sole solve. I think Ben Hogan said that if you get beat by a lucky hole-out on the 18th hole (or whatever) it's your fault for not playing good enough to have a cushion (very poor paraphrasing).

1984 was a historically strong draft class. NBA Hall of Famers include Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockton, and Charles Barkley. Jordan was very highly rated coming out of UNC, though obviously nobody knew just how good he would end up being.

And as a Trail Blazers fan, I can now go cry in a corner.

The Blazers already had Clyde Drexler, and they thought they needed a big man to be contenders. The real crime isn’t that they passed on Jordan; it’s that they passed on Barkley. (They also passed on Sam Perkins, Otis Thorpe, and Kevin Willis, who were all productive NBA big men into their late thirties.)

Last edited by 9021amyers on Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If Julie had gotten her DD right, she would have won, and then they'd have had to invite Gilbert and Rebecca back.

If it was just that one Daily Double and nothing else being changed, I dunno about re-inviting Gilbert since his Final wager didn't look significant enough to alter the outcome of the game. Compare that with Rebecca's gutsy wager; if she'd gotten it right, she would've finished in, what, second place?

Either way Rebecca gets to play again even if she had no idea on the FJ! clue and was in no way thrown by the wording.

Yeah, no kidding. Considering she didn't write anything down, I doubt she thought "Manchester by the Sea? No, it was merely DISTRIBUTED by Amazon, not PRODUCED!"

Welp, I, for one, felt there was something off by the wording, but couldn't place it until the erratum.

While I didn't remember Amazon distributing Manchester by the Sea, I was fairly certain it wasn't produced by them because if Amazon (co)produced Manchester, someone from Amazon would have been up for sharing the Best Picture Oscar, and I know I would have remembered that.

seaborgium wrote:
If Julie had gotten her DD right, she would have won, and then they'd have had to invite Gilbert and Rebecca back.

If it was just that one Daily Double and nothing else being changed, I dunno about re-inviting Gilbert since his Final wager didn't look significant enough to alter the outcome of the game. Compare that with Rebecca's gutsy wager; if she'd gotten it right, she would've finished in, what, second place?

If they entered FJ with Gilbert @ 14,800 and Julie @ 9,800, Gilbert would have wagered accordingly, which would have lowered his Final score to approximately $9,999.

Went 4/5 in College Hoops because when they mentioned famous Tar Heels of the early 80s known for being clutch and awesome during March Madness I went with "Big Game James" James Worthy over Michael Jordan. Worthy was also higher-rated coming out of North Carolina, as he was the #1 overall pick in 1982 while Jordan was the #3 overall pick in 1984.

In fact, mentioning a 2013 poll was misleading non-information in that sense, as I would expect those who actually follow college hoops to rate Worthy as the more legendary March Madness player.

Or the Rocket's "incompetence" in selecting Hakeem Olajuwon? Centers won championships back then, shooting guards didn't. The Bulls would have likely selected someone other than Jordan if they had had the #2 pick, too. Selecting Jordan over a potentially great center would have required considerable foresight in

* Realizing the entire style of the NBA would change from an inside-out, fast-break style to a slower, more perimeter-oriented game.
* Realizing that Jordan would become far, far greater in the NBA than he ever was in college.

Perhaps a genius GM would have made a different choice, but they would have been a small minority.

Jordan was considered an excellent prospect, yes, and 1984 was a legendarily great draft with a host of future All-Stars. But he wasn't nearly the player in college as he would become in the pro ranks. James Worthy had the slightly better college career and more of a reputation for being clutch, which is why he was selected #1 overall in 1982 (a decent draft year).

Worthy didn't exactly have a horrible pro career either, winning multiple championships with the Magic Johnson-led Lakers (at times Worthy was the 2nd best player on those squads), making multiple All-Star and All-NBA teams, and getting into the Hall of Fame. But obviously, it pales in comparison to what Jordan accomplished.

I know. I'm not saying it's impossible or incorrect. But it's not a good clue either, since the other piece of information (famous 1982 Tar Heel player who was named "All-Time March Madness Player" in 2013) would more accurately apply to Worthy, not Jordan.

Ideally, what the guys did or didn't do in the pro ranks shouldn't affect how their college careers are judged.

Last edited by IronNeck on Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

I recall an instance where a correct response by player A was initially negged, and later corrected. All good, right? No, because not only did player B get money for it too, but hit a DD that would have otherwise been player A's. And, thanks to that extra money and the DD, player B was within range of player A and got him on the sole solve in FJ.

That is a situation where the game result was 100% changed by the show's mistakes, but player A never got a second chance.

There is a little bit of the gambler's fallacy in this supposition. It reminds me of the hokum at the blackjack table when players complain that a bad player is messing up their hands by hitting/staying at the wrong time.

The idea that 1) the DD would have been player A's,

This would absolutely have been the case. They were going down the category, beginning with $400, and the very next clue uncovered after A was incorrectly negged and B got his response counted correct was the DD.

twelvefootboy wrote:and 2) that player B was therefore bequeathed extra money are both leaps of faith.

He was DEFINITELY bequethed extra money, as counting A's initial response wouldn't have given him a chance at it at all. And he DEFINITELY got extra money from the DD one clue later, since he wouldn't have gotten it at all.

Now, you can argue that if A had gotten his initial response counted correct, he would have uncovered the DD, bet an arbitrarily large amount, and gotten it wrong, and then B would still have managed to win. Fine.

In that case, change the 100% to 99.5%. This is irrelevant to the point, which is Jeopardy's lack of consistency in which writing/judge mistakes are enough for a contestant to get a second shot and which are not.

twelvefootboy wrote:
I think Ben Hogan said that if you get beat by a lucky hole-out on the 18th hole (or whatever) it's your fault for not playing good enough to have a cushion (very poor paraphrasing).

In other words, you're arguing Rebecca doesn't deserve a second appearance?